Dominic Rhodes suspended

[Dam8610]

Because in a mass media, spectacle driven enterprise like professional football, image is everything. If a player looks bad, the franchise loses money, so it becomes their responsibility to make sure these guys don't embarass their team.

Which is why the NBA was successful long before the implementation of their conduct policy, and viewership declined as the quality of their product deteriorated? Conduct policies in professional sports step into the boundaries of the rights to privacy and self expression. Players have morals clauses in their contracts, and can be fired by their individual employers for incidents that they deem to be too big of a PR nightmare to retain the player. If the team thinks a player has done something aggregious enough, they will take their own action against the player (see: Albert Haynesworth). There's absolutely no reason for the NFL to step in on an issue like this.

[Dam8610]

ah. yes. so, if i get a DUI during my free time, my work shouldn't be able to fire me, even though such a problem would prevent me from being able to do my job. but you think that because it happened during my free time, they shouldn't have any recourse whatsoever and should be forced to continue to pay me until such time as i was able to work again.

that's utterly asinine.

Oakland is free to fire him if they feel that doing so is the best course of action. Why should the NFL suspend him?

[Dam8610]

ah. yes. so, if i get a DUI during my free time, my work shouldn't be able to fire me, even though such a problem would prevent me from being able to do my job. but you think that because it happened during my free time, they shouldn't have any recourse whatsoever and should be forced to continue to pay me until such time as i was able to work again.

that's utterly asinine.

Further, I don't happen to know what industry you work in, but this would be more the equivalent of you getting a DUI, your employer deciding that no action needs to be taken against you, but the governing body of the industry you work in deciding (against most past precedents) that you need to be suspended from your job for a quarter of the year as a result. Wouldn't that strike you as a little bit odd?

[Dam8610]

human resources can fire me for blowing lines at work. why should the owner of the company be able to fire me? or, the manager of my mall kiosk can fire me. why should corporate be able to?

come on. you're better than this.

The teams are the employers, the NFL is the governing body of each individual employer. Al Davis is the owner of the company employing Dominic Rhodes, and he can fire Rhodes at any point for basically any reason thanks to the morals clause in his contract. My question is why should the governing body of the industry go against most (all but one actually, and that came under Goodell's watch as well) of their precedent and suspend the employees for DUI?

[Dam8610]

that's not true. it would be akin to my division wanting to fire me, or the company wide HR wanting to fire me. the NFL is the company. the teams are parts of that whole. unless you think the colts could decide to give the NFL a big middle finger and go play CFL football if they wanted? your example is similar to the player's union deciding to step in, NOT the league.

So all stock companies are really just a part of the SEC? That's the same basic logic you're using here. Of course all the teams are going to stay with the NFL, it's the best option for all parties involved. That doesn't make the NFL the owner of all of the teams though, just the governing body, and a governing body that since Goodell's arrival is acting against a great deal of its precedents.

[Dam8610]

again. the raiders can't just leave the nfl and decide to join the CFL. your analogy is, quite simply, incorrect.

What's the point of having owners if the franchises aren't seperate entities from the NFL?

[Dam8610]

you're dodging the question. could any NFL team LEAVE the nfl if it chose to?

I would guess so, given that they're each individual companies. I can't say for sure, given that I don't know of nor do I have access to the agreements between each team and the NFL. If you do, feel free to answer the question.

your comparison relates to a union. it's just not a good analogy.

My comparison relates to a governing body, such as the SEC, which is the example I gave. It's actually a pretty accurate analogy.

the NFL owns all rights to football broadcasts. NOT the individual teams. if the NFL is just a loose coalition of teams, why did EA have to negotiate with the NFL rather than with specific teams for licensing of its game? why couldn't, say, the raiders have opted out and sold their rights to someone else for more money?

You've never heard of collective bargaining? The NFLPA isn't the only side participating in talks when concerning the "Collective Bargaining Agreement" between the NFL and NFLPA. When other unions make their CBAs (and all unions have them), who do you think they make them with? Perhaps the governing bodies of their respective industries?

what's the point of having VPs if there are CEO's and directors?

Any given owner of a company either is or hires a CEO for it. Any given owner of an NFL franchise either is or hires a CEO to run the franchise. The NFL does not own the teams, which is why your analogy doesn't work.

[PoopSandwich]

Oakland is free to fire him if they feel that doing so is the best course of action. Why should the NFL suspend him?

Because it takes away from his money and doesn't require the team to lose him for 16 games...

A suspension is alot better than the league kicking him out...

I don't know many businesses that would let you get a DUI and not get fired/punished for it.

[Dam8610]

I don't know many businesses that would let you get a DUI and not get fired/punished for it.

Then let the employer punish him, not the governing body. That's my entire point.

[PoopSandwich]

Then let the employer punish him, not the governing body. That's my entire point.

So if I got a DUI my employer should punish me and I should get out of it completely free from the government? I mean our society would be so awesome if it were like that!!! Someone could own a business and hire a bunch of people as hitmen, and since the government shouldn't punish them, and the employer is a criminal, they would never go to jail!

Grand idea!

The government is the law, the commish is the law, don't break the law.

[Dam8610]

So if I got a DUI my employer should punish me and I should get out of it completely free from the government? I mean our society would be so awesome if it were like that!!! Someone could own a business and hire a bunch of people as hitmen, and since the government shouldn't punish them, and the employer is a criminal, they would never go to jail!

Grand idea!

The government is the law, the commish is the law, don't break the law.

Is the concept of a governing body really this difficult to understand? He's already dealt with the law, it's up to the Raiders to punish him after that.

[PoopSandwich]

Is the concept of a governing body really this difficult to understand? He's already dealt with the law, it's up to the Raiders to punish him after that.

No it isn't... Do you think teams really want to suspend their players for 4 games? No...

So then the government as you call it steps in and does their job... The NFL has every right to suspend someone who has broken a law, because most of the times teams won't do it... Wasn't Pac Man only suspended like one game compared to the 16 the "Government" gave him.

[cardsalltheway]

You can't have teams hand out punishments for their own players with the NFL left out of the entire process. You'll have teams that will be strict and keep all their players in line with harsh punishments, and then you'll have teams that will, for the most part, let their players do whatever they want with very little punishment. You have to have an unbiased body that gives out consistent punishments.

[ks_perfection]

No it isn't... Do you think teams really want to suspend their players for 4 games? No...

So then the government as you call it steps in and does their job... The NFL has every right to suspend someone who has broken a law, because most of the times teams won't do it... Wasn't Pac Man only suspended like one game compared to the 16 the "Government" gave him.

Even if teams wanted their player suspended they don't want to offend him by doing it themselves. If the league does the team doesn't look like the bad guy who's taking 1/4 of his salary away.

[Dam8610]

because you said so? seriously? fine, i'll even take your word for it.

"Crucial to the SEC's effectiveness in each of these areas is its enforcement authority. Each year the SEC brings hundreds of civil enforcement actions against individuals and companies for violation of the securities laws." -http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml

the SEC has brought lawsuits against INDIVIDUALS for violations of its laws. the NFL has, similarly, suspended INDIVIDUALS for violations of its laws. how is this a good comparison that is favorable for your argument again? because i couldn't get fired and get slapped with a lawsuit from the SEC? what?

Does the SEC suspend stock brokers for DUIs? When exactly did I say the NFL should have no enforcement authority? On this particular issue, I feel they're overstepping their bounds. An off the field conduct policy does the same IMO. Is there any governing body outside of sports that even has one of these? A conduct policy for what you can do on your own time? I doubt it, and if there were, I'd be shocked if it wasn't being challenged. I think an individual or group of NFL players should challenge Fuhrer Goodell's policy as well, especially since it completely breaks precedent.